Re: Question for all candidates: handle debian-admin more openly
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Question for all candidates: handle debian-admin more openly
- From: Sven Luther <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 11:43:02 +0100
- Message-id: <20060310104302.GA17471@localhost.localdomain>
- In-reply-to: <20060310102112.GA22619@tennyson.dodds.net>
- References: <20060307215657.GF12821@frigg.ftbfs.de> <20060308181726.GE22909@seventeen> <20060309063149.GB21840@finlandia.infodrom.north.de> <20060309105821.GA3353@localhost.localdomain> <20060309115454.GA21840@finlandia.infodrom.north.de> <20060309120347.GA5015@localhost.localdomain> <20060310102112.GA22619@tennyson.dodds.net>
Let's move this to elsewhere than -vote for technical discussion, d-ppc and
d-ppc64 are good places for this.
On Fri, Mar 10, 2006 at 02:21:12AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 01:03:47PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Are bruckner and voltaire overloaded or do they lack services the developers
> > > need?
> > The release team has called for a multi-arch implementation to support
> > powerpc64 userland over the biarch situation. This calls for a machine capable
> > of building *and running* powerpc 64 code, which is not the case of existing
> > powerpc 32bit machines.
> Er, the demand for powerpc64 userland support did not come from the release
I stand corrected. It is a pre-requisite of having a multi-arch powerpc64
userland. The release team ruled against a biarch powerpc64 userland though,
which would not have needed an extra machine.
So, if we want a powerpc64 userland for etch, then having a 64bit powerpc
buildd is needed. I know though that you ruled this only as a tentative
optional release goal, not a strong one.
> team; and the problems with building powerpc64 binary packages on a powerpc
> system aren't specific to multiarch (obviously -- since multiarch hasn't
Well, conceptually, there is no real difference between biarch and multiarch,
despite the claims of the multiarch proponent who believe in moving libs
around and everything. The real issue here is if you build a the packages for
both bitness in a single arch, thus disabling the 64bit specific test runs
when built on a 32bit machine, or putting all the 64bit stuff in its own arch.
> actually happened yet, and we've been having problems building glibc on
> voltaire since last year). Multiarch just happens to be (IMHO) the best
/me builds glibc fine on my powerbook, so i wonder about this one, haven't
done so in a long time though. Where is glibc built then ?
> technical approach to building extra packages for targets such as ppc64.
I agree with you that being able to install powerpc-arch packages on 32bit and
both powerpc and powerpc64 arch packages on 64bit, and build all 64bit stuff
in a 64bit arch is easier on the packaging work. Not sure if we should allow
to install powerpc64 packages on 32bit powerpc, in order to be able to build
64bit packages on 32bit machines, or just build 64bit non-packaged apps on
32bit machines though. This kind of defeats the benefits of the multi-arch